Catching A Killer: The Timeline Leading Up To The Arrest Of Rex Heuermann (3/9/25)

As we predicted on the podcast, JP Morgan and the survivor of Jeffrey Epstein who brought the suit against the banking giant have now settled for an undetermined amount of money. The settlement effectively ends the lawsuit against JP Morgan. JP morgan and their lawsuit against Jes Staley is still active and the lawsuit brought by the USVI against JP Morgan and Jes Staley also remain in the system.(commercial at 8:10)to contact me:[email protected]:JPMorgan agrees to settle Jeffrey Epstein victim class action lawsuit | Fox BusinessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we take a trip back to May of 2021 and take a look at the reports that co-conspirators were talking to the federal government. With all of these reports that surrounded the Co-conspirators and then them basically not even playing a part in the Maxwell trial, one must ask the question...will the alleged co-conspirators ever be brought to justice?(Commercial 11:09)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9618419/Jeffrey-Epsteins-alleged-conspirators-set-testify-against-Ghislaine-Maxwell.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein had a long history working for and with the government, even if they do not want to acknowledge it. One example of this is when he turned snitch on his former company and helped the feds put some of his colleagues away. Somehow, just like every other time he had a brush with the law, he ended up landing on his feet. The reason? He was being protected by certain elements in the government.Let's dive in and discuss it!(commercial at 8:34)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2018/11/28/pedophile-millionaire-dodged-harsh-sentence-by-ratting-out-bear-stearns-execs/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In July 2023, Rex Heuermann, a 59-year-old architect from Massapequa Park, Long Island, was arrested in connection with the Gilgo Beach serial killings. Heuermann was charged with three counts of first-degree and three counts of second-degree murder for the deaths of Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman, and Amber Costello, whose remains were discovered in 2010 near Gilgo Beach. He was also named the prime suspect in the disappearance and death of Maureen Brainard-Barnes.The arrest followed an extensive investigation that linked Heuermann to the victims through several key pieces of evidence. Cellphone records indicated communications between Heuermann and three of the victims. Additionally, an email account associated with him had been used to monitor the investigation's progress. DNA analysis played a crucial role; mitochondrial DNA from a pizza crust discarded by Heuermann matched DNA found on one victim. Further, hairs discovered on or near three victims were consistent with samples taken from items in the trash outside Heuermann's residence. Notably, during the times the murders occurred, Heuermann's wife and children were reportedly out of the state, aligning with the timeline of the killings. ​to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:[email protected]:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed Motion in Limine #6 on February 24, 2025, seeking to exclude the testimony of Idaho State Police forensic scientist Rylene Nowlin regarding "touch" or "contact" DNA. The defense argues that such terms are misleading, as they imply a definitive method of DNA deposition, which cannot be scientifically determined. They contend that allowing testimony on how DNA was transferred to the knife sheath found at the crime scene would confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice the defendant.The motion emphasizes that current DNA technology cannot conclusively determine when or how DNA was deposited on an item, whether through direct contact or secondary transfer. The defense references studies and expert opinions highlighting the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the potential for indirect transfer. They assert that permitting Nowlin to testify about the manner of DNA deposition exceeds her expertise and could mislead the jury, violating Idaho Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.to contact me:[email protected]:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-6-RE-Rylene-Nowlin-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Burrowes v. Smalls et al., filed in the Southern District of New York under Index No. 25-1618, plaintiff Kirk Burrowes brings a civil action against defendants including Janice Smalls (also known as Janice Combs), James Doe 1, Lawyer Doe 1, ABC Company 1, John and Jane Does 1-10, and ABC Corporations 1-10. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in actions that caused harm to the plaintiff, leading to the pursuit of legal remedies.​Kirk Burrowes, co-founder and former president of Bad Boy Entertainment, has filed a lawsuit against Janice Combs (also known as Janice Smalls), alleging her involvement in a scheme to unlawfully seize his 25% stake in the company. The complaint asserts that in 1996, Sean "Diddy" Combs, accompanied by the company's attorney, Kenneth Meiselas, confronted Burrowes with a baseball bat, coercing him into signing over his ownership stake to Janice Combs. Burrowes claims that this act was part of a broader plan orchestrated by Janice Combs to gain full control of Bad Boy Entertainment, employing tactics of intimidation, violence, and financial deception. He further alleges that following this incident, he was blacklisted from the music industry, resulting in financial ruin and homelessness. Burrowes is seeking damages for financial losses, reinstatement of his ownership interest, and a forensic audit of the company's financial records since its inception.to contact me:[email protected]:burrowes-v-janice-combs-1-25-cv-01618-feb-2025.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.